Jump to content

My Assessment of the 2013 Draft


Recommended Posts

It's difficult to fathom why anyone would give up Eifert and Hunt just to take Vacarro instead of Williams.  Because that's basically what we are talking about having to do in that scenario. 

 

If they wanted Vacarro, we know, given hindsight, that they would have had to have at least jumped up before New Orleans.  No way we do that for less than our third round pick.  But losing that pick screws us in more ways than one.  The team knew they wanted playmakers - of the pass catching variety - and by forgoing Eifert they would have been spending 2b on that guy.  So not only would we not end up with a promising pass rusher for the future, but we would have gotten a lesser player at what was clearly defined as our greatest need.  You may ask, "how do we know it was there greatest need?"

 

The team's actions give us our answer.  One of the Hallmarks of this team in the last several years has been their thoroughness.  There is very little doubt that they made the same calls that the other teams were making, and they knew what they were going to have to give up to get Vacarro or Reid.  And at the end of the day, rather than make that choice, they opted to hold onto their picks.  Now there IS an argument to make that they could have traded back, gotten an extra pick, and then chosen Elam, but the speed with which they dropped their card and took Eifert tells us that they weren't really entertaining offers.  They wanted their guy and were confident in pulling the trigger they had him.  In short, they wanted Eifert  and their later picks more than they wanted a safety.

 

And let's not act like the Safeties in this year draft were anywhere near elite.  They all had multiple fleas and wouldn't hold a candle to the top 20 safeties that have gone in previous years.  It's been said by Marvin over and over again, but you dont' take a lesser guy today just to fill a need, because down the road that can create two holes: the lesser player isn't as good as you need and you have to replace him, and you missed on the BPA who WOULD have filled a future hole there.

 

And lastly, I simply don't understand all of the bitching about Charles.  Charles' role is not going to be diminished.  In fact, I think it's safe to say we'll see even a bit more of him.  Why?  Because, fo the umpteenth time, THE TEAM HAS SAID THEY WANT HIM TO MOVE TO AN H-BACK ROLE.  Think about it - we also brought in a TE who's had H-back experience (Alex Smith).  Hell, even Gresh and Eifert may take some snaps there.  The key to this offense is finding a bunch of guys who can do multiple things which will create match-up problems.  In fact, I wouldn't be totally shocked if we went without a true FB this year (my personal greatest disappointment in the draft was not taking Kyle Juszczyk, the FB/Hback from Harvard that the Ravens grabbed; we brought him in, and he was good stuff and would have allowed us to potentially eliminate the traditional FB position (Pressley can't catch and moves like a slug with the ball)).  

 

 

not to mention that at the time they would have had to make the trade, Andre Smith wasn't signed.  So not only are you giving up a 3rd round pick, you're also likely giving up Bernard as you certainly would have had to go oline at 37 (which they were prepared to do anyway).  

 

Which means they would have had to waited until at least the 4th to grab either a RB or a pass catcher (WR/TE) of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  In fact, I wouldn't be totally shocked if we went without a true FB this year (my personal greatest disappointment in the draft was not taking Kyle Juszczyk, the FB/Hback from Harvard that the Ravens grabbed; we brought him in, and he was good stuff and would have allowed us to potentially eliminate the traditional FB position (Pressley can't catch and moves like a slug with the ball)).  

 

Hobson vetoed drafting Juszczyk because he can't figure out any puns based on his name.

 

There is also talk of having Rex Burkhead possibly do some FB duties...so maybe is him and the TEs splitting that load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Hobson vetoed drafting Juszczyk because he can't figure out any puns based on his name.
 
There is also talk of having Rex Burkhead possibly do some FB duties...so maybe is him and the TEs splitting that load.


Yup. In fact it was the mention of burkead playing some FB that was the last little whisp of smoke to make me think there was fire to the idea of going more classic west coast Hback and eliminating the one-dimensional lead blocking FB.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

right, but they came into the draft with only one starter's spot open.  They had that luxury, and they didn't have to go about doing anything crazy.  They let the board come to them.  That's what the good teams do, and because of it they were able to have guys like Hamilton and Fragel, who should have gone far earlier, fall in their lap. 

 

Teams that trade up do it because they either have a major hole they need to fill, or there's a player they think will get them over the hump.  Vaccaro certainly fills a need, but considering the team needed another playmaker, Eifert fills one too.  And I wouldn't say either "gets them over the hump" more than the other would.  And if I had to choose, I'd say Eifert will make the bigger impact.  And Vaccaro was my favorite player in the draft.

 

So by your own admission we came into the draft with one starters spot open, the other safety spot..whether it be strong or free. I would say filling the other starting safety spot is a major hole, so major they had to sign Crocker off the street in week 4 to do it. I would say that adding Vaccaro to this defense would make them an elite unit, especially when you consider that Crocker isn't on the roster and showed once again that he's can't stay healthy for a season.

 

Eifert might make the bigger impact because he can score TD's but I don't know if he will be utliized properly based on how they used the pass catching TE they drafted in last year's draft. They ran some two TE sets last year as the season progressed and Charles became more comfortable with his role but now it seems like they are starting over as they will have to wait for a rookie to learn the offense, speed of the game, etc..before they can use him in the 2 TE sets.

 

 

 

In a 2 TE set, the second TE is a starter.   Being part of a rotation like Bernard will be might as well be a starter.  If we play 3 WRs, Gresham himself is not a 'starter'.  Three of the top 4 picks are likely to get a lot of playing time right off, and a fifth and possibly a sixth (the LB and 2nd RB might see work on teams...

 

I don't know how many plays will be ran out of the 2 TE formation or how many snaps Bernard will get as the 3rd down back. But I do know that Gresham is on the field in 3 WR sets, it's normally the FB who is on the bench when the team goes with 3 WR's.

 

Marvin said all of the picks could be active on gameday so that means they must not be to comfortable with guys who are on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right, but they came into the draft with only one starter's spot open.  They had that luxury, and they didn't have to go about doing anything crazy.  They let the board come to them.  That's what the good teams do, and because of it they were able to have guys like Hamilton and Fragel, who should have gone far earlier, fall in their lap. 
 
Teams that trade up do it because they either have a major hole they need to fill, or there's a player they think will get them over the hump.  Vaccaro certainly fills a need, but considering the team needed another playmaker, Eifert fills one too. And I wouldn't say either "gets them over the hump" more than the other would.  And if I had to choose, I'd say Eifert will make the bigger impact.  And Vaccaro was my favorite player in the draft.


I haven't really thought much about trading up, but had we done so I think it's about the differences.

Starting S Vacarro and 2nd TE Charles/Smith

vs

Starting S Williams-Mays-Iloka vs 2nd TE Eifert

Is the difference between Vacarro and Williams more or less than the difference between Eifert and Charles?

Is it possible that Charles could have been that second option?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really thought much about trading up, but had we done so I think it's about the differences.Starting S Vacarro and 2nd TE Charles/SmithvsStarting S Williams-Mays-Iloka vs 2nd TE EifertIs the difference between Vacarro and Williams more or less than the difference between Eifert and Charles?


That's part. The other part is does adding Vaccaro and moving the D to top three, exceed the value of adding Eifert and moving the O to top 12 while leaving the D at 5 or 6?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D shit the be once or twice during TE playoff lost.

The O shit the be over and over.

The D will be better by the simple fact of letting the O get better and not spending so much time on the field.

Oh, and we have another couple of edge rushers we get to throw in the mix now too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really thought much about trading up, but had we done so I think it's about the differences.

Starting S Vacarro and 2nd TE Charles/Smith

vs

Starting S Williams-Mays-Iloka vs 2nd TE Eifert

Is the difference between Vacarro and Williams more or less than the difference between Eifert and Charles?

Is it possible that Charles could have been that second option?

 

The first option has the disadvantage of not improving the offense this draft.  This seems to have been a high priority, at least equal to finding a solution at S.  That's why they went for Eifert over the third-best S.

 

The one cost you know for sure when trading up is the loss of that player or players you could have drafted.  Not that this means you never do it, it just needs to be remembered.

 

The other thing to keep in mind at S compared to last year is that Iloka is no longer a rookie and Sands no longer hurt, and for what it is worth Mays has more experience here too.  They may feel better about working in Williams in this situation, and after all Crocker is still a possibility if things go poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D shit the be once or twice during TE playoff lost.

The O shit the be over and over.

The D will be better by the simple fact of letting the O get better and not spending so much time on the field.

Oh, and we have another couple of edge rushers we get to throw in the mix now too.

 

Yes, Hunt seems to be good insurance if we can't keep all the DEs whose contracts are coming due.  Similar to Whitworth signing a year before much of the OL all came up for new deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really thought much about trading up, but had we done so I think it's about the differences.Starting S Vacarro and 2nd TE Charles/SmithvsStarting S Williams-Mays-Iloka vs 2nd TE EifertIs the difference between Vacarro and Williams more or less than the difference between Eifert and Charles?Is it possible that Charles could have been that second option?



It's not that simple. They wanted another playmaking receiver. So they likely would have had to take one at 53, so there goes Hunt.

Plus, again, at the time Andre wasn't signed. So they didn't know if they'd be able to get a guy like Bernard at 37, even if he was still there. They were prepared to take Watson until Andre signed at the last second. So, people wanted them to give up picks at a time when they were expecting to use a high pick on an OT. Something they didn't want to do.

There was simply no reason to trade up, especially with Eifert and Reid (2 of the top guys on their board) still on the board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the bengals staying put.

KiJana Carter proved the Bengals should STAY WHERE THEY ARE!


 

And Akili Smith showed they should not ;)

 

My biggest issue is going for the pure potential in hunt intead of A Brown, other than that, pretty strong draft.

 

We are still a bit handicapped by not having a real football guy at GM but if your a Bengals fan you live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't really thought much about trading up, but had we done so I think it's about the differences.

Starting S Vacarro and 2nd TE Charles/Smith

vs

Starting S Williams-Mays-Iloka vs 2nd TE Eifert

Is the difference between Vacarro and Williams more or less than the difference between Eifert and Charles?

Is it possible that Charles could have been that second option?

 

This..personally I would rather have Vaccaro and Charles vs. Williams/Mays/Iloka and Eifert. I think Vaccaro gives you more flexibility and makes the defense much better while I still think there is a big question mark at safety. I think most people would feel better about the defense with Vaccaro on the roster vs. Williams and guys who were here last year.

 

Eifert supposed value has yet to be proven because we had a good rookie pass catching TE on the roster last year and didn't use him...I know Zimmer would use Vaccaro, I can't say the same for Gruden. Go back and look at the stats from when Gruden was the OC for TB, they are running the same offense right, and they didn't have two TE's putting up big numbers. But maybe Gruden's added some new wrinkles to his offense so we will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing we don't have that all the nfl coaches have is the ability to talk to these players and work them out. They have a direct comparison with players on their own roster that they are familiar with and see everyday.

So when "insert college star name" isn't picked over "college player you don't know about" there is hours of time that goes into the decision. Lacey wasn't even the best rb on his team...might have been 3rd or 4th with some of Bama's young talent. You give Gio Bama's line and he might have come out with more hype than Reggie Bush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This..personally I would rather have Vaccaro and Charles vs. Williams/Mays/Iloka and Eifert. I think Vaccaro gives you more flexibility and makes the defense much better while I still think there is a big question mark at safety. I think most people would feel better about the defense with Vaccaro on the roster vs. Williams and guys who were here last year.

 

 

But those guys weren't here last year - Sands was hurt, Iloka was learning the ropes.  Not quite the same situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

exactly.  Vaccaro was the player I wanted most in this draft.  But for the Bengals to get him, it would have cost them Hunt.

 

 

I'll take Eifert and Hunt over Vaccaro.  

 

 

The Bengals didn't need all 10 picks this year, but it was too deep of a draft to give away picks this year.  Fragel and Hamilton will likely end up being steals, and who knows what comes of Johnson, who at the start of the 2012 season some thought was the best center prospect in the country.  Besides, as many as 8 of these guys are going to make the 53 man roster.  Watch.

Really?... the active roster or are you including PS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, even Vacarro or Reid may not have started from day one. Ask yourself, other than AJ Greene (who was truly an elite freak - but whO also joined a team without ANY legit positional competition) and Andy dalton (no Qb), what skill position or premium position have rookies been day 1 starters in the last 6-7 years?

No tackles
No safeties.
No CBs
No Rbs
No DEs
No DTs

It basically doesn't happen. One of the biggest reasons is that our coaches value cerebral guys who understand the game before they get out there. And by all accounts that's what they got in Williams: a field general (it's been well established that crockers greatest value to the team was understanding coverages and getting his d set up properly).

All of which is a long way of saying: we are no longer the team with holes that is going to draft out of need and throw guys into the fire. Drafts are all about the future. If som guys can contribute early that's great, but this years draft is much more about 2-3 seasons from now.

I for one find the change exhilarating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that simple. They wanted another playmaking receiver. So they likely would have had to take one at 53, so there goes Hunt.

Plus, again, at the time Andre wasn't signed. So they didn't know if they'd be able to get a guy like Bernard at 37, even if he was still there. They were prepared to take Watson until Andre signed at the last second. So, people wanted them to give up picks at a time when they were expecting to use a high pick on an OT. Something they didn't want to do.

There was simply no reason to trade up, especially with Eifert and Reid (2 of the top guys on their board) still on the board.


Id give up Hunt for being settled at S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id give up Hunt for being settled at S

 

There are no assurances that taking Vaccaro would work or that Williams won't work, either way.  

 

Dude started for years in the best conference in the nation, and was team captain.  That means more than some damn draft site's opinion,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no assurances that taking Vaccaro would work or that Williams won't work, either way.  
 
Dude started for years in the best conference in the nation, and was team captain.  That means more than some damn draft site's opinion,


So you would draft a guy based on starting in a conference and being a team captain over whether or not his skillset projects to the NFL level? Do you know how many guys start in the SEC and never make it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 would not include the practice squad.  Not all of those would dress for games.
 
and you have to remember that the team drafted them because they liked them, not just to keep busy.


8 of those guys making it seems like a ton.

The top 5 are probably all locks (Eifert-Bernard-Hunt-Williams-Porter) Hawkinson, Johnson, Burkhead, Fragel all face an uphill battle. I expect the WR to make it though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, Hunt seems to be good insurance if we can't keep all the DEs whose contracts are coming due.  Similar to Whitworth signing a year before much of the OL all came up for new deal

I hope you know something about Hunt that I don't know. A T&F guy who's tall and blocked some kicks and is a good story, but he has no background. I'd love to see him make the roster and get some ST play but to say he's insurance for DE is a strech, IMO...the guy is raw meat. Witworth had alot more cred than this dude Old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...